A good case against God

[Jeffonthenet]

In this thread, I am looking for a case against God. Cases require evidence and argument.

What's a god? You haven't even bothered to describe what it is that you are demanding a rebuttal of! And you are too fucking stupid to see how preposterous what you are doing is. You might as well wander into here and demand, "Can anyone give me a good case against the existence of Brufarian Fershniblets that can stand up to scrutiny?".

Have you no idea at all how stupid what you are doing is?

You are making a positive claim. Namely, you are saying that God less plausible to exist than Brufarian Freshetc… by the standard of evidence of seemingly all the atheists here, this requires evidence. I am not trying to fight with you, I just think your comparison of God with Mr. Freshetc is misleading, and if such claims were removed, your point would not stand up to scrutiny. I also defined God in one of my previous posts to this current one, so I would refer you to that at this point.

It doesn't follow that if we have no good arguments for God, (which I have not accepted) then there is no good reason to believe God exists.

Arguments are not evidence, whelp. And the arguments you reference -- the kalam and the moral, along with hundreds of other similar abortions -- are long-debunked laughing stock. The fact that you consider them to be valid, along with the fact that you think any such arguments can replace evidence, tells us the level of self-delusion you are willing to inflict upon yourself in order to cling onto your silly superstitions.

They seem like decent arguments, and they use evidence. For example, for the Kalaam, the evidence would be the scientific evidence for an absolute beginning of the universe. And I think you are mistaken that these are absurd arguments which cannot be defended, or have somehow been debunked. I don't think this is what the scholarly literature shows, while popular literature and internet sites might say something else.

There are no good non-circular arguments for the fact that there is a past or that the external world is real.

You are making all sorts of positive claims here, even from your first of a non-defined "gawd"-thing. The onus of proof is yours.

I am quite sure that there is wide agreement among philosophers that properly basic beliefs must be assumed and cannot be argued for. And it seems quite evident that it would be impossible to show that the past didn't pop into being five minutes ago with the appearance of age (the atheist Bertrand Russel's example), as it would look exactly the same as it does now if it did. The same thing with the reality of the external world.
Likewise there is the, I believe, unsolved problem of induction the atheist David Hume which means that casuality itself cannot be proven. How do we know things like this happen then? I submit it is intuition. It is surely possible that the way we know these most important beliefs could be the way we know God exists as well.

Then why are they debated in professional philosophical journals by world class philosophers, some of them atheists, who take them seriously?

Because there are still plenty of idiots like you who cling to their superstitions and delusions so hard that, lackiog even a shred of evidence to support their fantastical assertions of any sort of deity, they convince themselves that those pieces of shit could be convincing.

---

I really have spent a lot of time looking at the evidence myself. My own rigorous adherence to following reason where it led which I learned from reading the Dialogues of Plato eventually caused me to lose my atheism as I found that I had been convinced that there was no God by faulty reasons. I still constantly question my faith and subject it to every objection I can think of to the point of almost an unhealthy obsession. I try to do this with all of my beliefs.

To everyone who answered by saying that the burden of proof is on the theist, rather than repeating myself five more times, I would direct you to post #3 where I replied to this point.

That verbose bit of word salad does nothing to address your responsibility -- and your deceitful, dishonest, disingenuous attempt to shirk your responsibility -- to the burden of proof.

Certianly there are threads on the internet where theists can present evidence for the existence of God. This is not one of them. This is the atheist's chance to do likewise, and I have tried to defend with reason that even if there is no demonstrable evidence for God it does not justify atheism. Go ahead and be agnostic if you want, but if you refuse to give any argument against God or belief in God that can stand up to scrutiny, I contend that your atheism is unjustified.

So really in this thread I am not arguing that God exists.

I am arguing that the absence of demonstrable evidence for God doesn't justify atheism.

I am also asking atheists to give good reasons to think there is no God, and I can't say that I think I have seen any.

And that one shouldn't rule out God simply because of the apparent absence of evidence.

If there are any agnostics here I would invite you to join me.

---

I have been reading and answering the posts in the order I have received them. Unfortunately I don't have time to do this faster than I am. I simply can't respond to the 14th page of them by now and hold a social life as well… though maybe I will do things differently like only respond to the most relevant comments since people are insulting me about not noticing things on pages that I haven't seen yet. (though just now I looked at the most recent replies) Thanks everyone for participating though.